The Bengaluru CGST zone cautioned taxpayers about individuals posing as GST officers. Taxpayers were advised to verify officer identity, authorization, and DIN before allowing inspections.
The customs authority clarified procedures for export cargo returning to Indian ports due to maritime disruptions. The circular prescribes verification, cancellation of export documents, and safeguards to prevent wrongful export incentive claims.
The High Court ruled that retrospective cancellation of GST registration is invalid if such action is not proposed in the original show cause notice. The judgment emphasizes adherence to natural justice and proper reasoning in administrative orders.
ITAT Raipur held that the appellate authority must pass a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6) and cannot dismiss an income tax appeal solely for non-prosecution.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation extensions apply only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and not to statutory deadlines like filing TDS statements. Consequently, the levy of late filing fee under section 234E was upheld for delayed TDS returns.
Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that deduction claim under section 35(2AB) had already been examined during original scrutiny assessment. Reopening based on same material was held to be a change of opinion and therefore invalid.
The ITAT Chennai held that an application filed after the extended deadline should be examined under the amended Section 80G provisions introduced by the Finance Act 2024. The Tribunal directed the authority to reconsider the application under the new clause allowing filing after commencement of activities.
The Court expressed concern over unclear railway fund allocation and emphasized that spending must prioritize public safety and welfare. Railways were directed to submit a detailed affidavit explaining funding priorities.
Rajasthan High Court held that failure to file GST returns in one state makes the taxpayer a defaulter and can justify denial of GST registration in another state.
The tribunal held that steel items used for maintenance and repair of manufacturing machinery fall within the scope of inputs used in relation to manufacture. The demand for reversal of Cenvat credit and penalty was set aside.
